Subcommittee hears constitutional, practical concerns about HB289’s tie between tax dependency and domicile

The House Election Law Subcommittee on Friday heard testimony raising constitutional and practical objections to HB289, a relist on domicile qualifications for voting that would treat people claimed as tax dependents by parents living outside New Hampshire as lacking domicile in the state.

Advocates and witnesses told members the bill would condition an individual’s right to vote on the actions of another person and that tax records are confidential, creating enforcement problems.

Henry Clementowich, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, told the subcommittee that the bill’s reliance on a tax‑code definition of “dependent” creates a constitutional problem because it “conditions someone else’s right to vote on the actions of another, which is their parents.” He said domicile qualifications traditionally turn on an individual’s physical presence and intent to make New Hampshire a home for “participation in democratic self government,” not on a third party’s tax filings.

Clementowich also warned of practical limits on enforcement. “Tax returns are confidential by statute,” he said, and “there’s no way for the state to know whether the person is voting lawfully” if the test depends on whether parents claimed a student or other person as a dependent. He said the voter could only ask the parents or attempt to subpoena tax records, a remedy he described as impractical.

A second witness, Michael O’Brien, a lobbyist representing America Votes, emphasized longstanding residency definitions the University of New Hampshire uses for in‑state tuition. Reading UNH’s policy, O’Brien told the subcommittee that “a student’s resident for tuition purposes is considered to be that of their parent unless the student is emancipated” and that UNH typically requires 12 continuous months of physical presence for in‑state tuition claims. He said UNH determines residency “at the time of admission for a degree,” a rule that, he told members, can create disparities between student tuition status and voting‑eligibility rules.

Members asked follow‑up questions about common scenarios, including students who receive parental support while living in New Hampshire. Clementowich said he was not a tax attorney but noted that dependency rules commonly turn on whether a person supplies “more than 50% of the wherewithal” for another person; he said the proposed change would be a departure from New Hampshire’s traditional domicile tests because it focuses on the source of support rather than physical presence and intent.

The subcommittee did not act on HB289. At the meeting’s start the chair said the panel would take no official actions until it had a quorum; the committee later reiterated that an administrative error had left HB608 mistakenly listed and would not be reviewed by the subcommittee.

HB289 and related testimony will be included in the subcommittee’s forthcoming report to the full committee, the chair said.